Are there any Nationwide CBO's other then the AMA?
 

[h=1]Community-Based Organization Law & Legal Definition[/h]

According to 20 USCS § 7801(6), the term “community-based organization” means “a public or private nonprofit organization of demonstrated effectiveness that--
(A) is representative of a community or significant segments of a community; and
(B) provides educational or related services to individuals in the community.”

OK the AMA has been referred to as meeting the regulatory definition in: FFA Interpretationhttp://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_a..._spec_rule.pdf
footnote 7 bottom of page 12

But the FAA assigns no exclusivity to the AMA.

Are there any other "Nationwide Community Based Organivations" that meet the definition? I believe that RCU is not a nonprofit so that would preclude them.

Ideas?

Community Based vs "nationwide" community Based... Let's find the definition for the "nationwide" version of "community" and then have the discussion.I'll be looking but it sounds like a term created...err...out of thin air to garner more authority...

I read highlighted phrase as "a public organization or a private nonprofit organization." The owner of a competitor to RCU has declared that his organization is a CBO, and it not a nonprofit either. FWIW, I think it most unlikely that FAA or Congress would support the interpretation that Sec 336 only applies to CBO members anyway. It would certainly contested in the courts as contrary to the American way. On the miniscule chance that it did stand as a requirement, indies that want to remain so would still have the option getting certification as commercial sUAS operators, and it appears that isn't going to be a big deal. I have not seen anything that would preclude anyone from flying for recreation with that ticket.

LCS, I speculate that the tern "Nationwide CBO" from the PL was invented to fit the AMA. Community in this context would be the "community of model aircraft hobbyists".

CJR, I think it all turns on what "subject to the programming of" actually means. As we know the AMA position is membership required.

AMA is NOT a community based organization. They have never been designated as such by the FAA.

The public hobby centers in the old USSR were CBOs.

I suppose that it really depends on what you mean by "designated", but I should point out to you that the FAA has, in writing, recognized the existence of the AMA as a CBO. In a footnote in the "Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft" the FAA states:

"2 The FAA is aware that at least one community based organization permits ‘‘first person view’’ (FPV) operations during which the hobbyist controls the aircraft while wearing goggles that display images transmitted from a camera mounted in the front of the model aircraft. While the intent of FPV is to provide a simulation of what a pilot would see from the flight deck of a manned aircraft, the goggles may obstruct an operator’s vision, thereby preventing the operator from keeping the model aircraft within his or her visual line of sight at all times.

This is a direct reference to the AMA "Advanced Flight Systems Operations" program.

Additionally, the FAA provides a direct hyperlink to the AMA webpages for model aviators to seek additional safety information. This link is in the FAA webpage "What Can I Do With My Model Aircraft".

As far as I am concerned, the FAA has recognized the AMA as a CBO.

It is, however, quite fascinating to observe that the FAA has not recognized any other CBO.

This is like implying that the mail came today. I recognize the US mail is in existence because they brought my mail to my house. Not that you are implying such, yet to recognize an organization does not mean it is endorsed, backed, has any ties at all, and does not put FAA on the line at all. Now if the FAA had "ties" in some of their "legal" (for lack of a better term) documents then there would be an issue. The AMA is like a sweat bee flying around the FAA's head and I would wager that the FAA does not want to contend with the AMA, yet it is one of those things that they have to acknowledge because the AMA does keep "buzzing" them.

I think this is essentially a matter of the AMA being big enough now that not many other non-profits want to tackle them or even think it is worthwhile endeavor. It takes time to build a non-profit and go through all the red tape. I was a director of a small non-profit once and I know many of the ins and outs of the non-profit structure. This is not intended as a throw down on the AMA, however I wished they did have some competition as it would make it better for all of us. Just the simple thing of flying at clubs we have to make sure they are AMA sanctioned (at least in my area) or we buy our own land and build a field which for many of us is not feasible.

To start with, you have lifted my words out of context. If you read the rest of my text, you will observe that the FAA does indeed endorse the AMA by using them as a source of model aviation safety guidelines in their web page.

Furthermore in the cited text from the interpretive rule, the FAA specifically uses the term "community based organization" in reference to the cited AMA safety program.

I don't think the FAA endorses the AMA and are willing require anyone to belong to them in exchange for less regulation but IMO they do recognize them and
IMO the AMA is the only organization that fits that description currently in the usa.

Well the FAA cannot require AMA membership. The law only requires that recreational model aviators follow the safety guidelines of a CBO. The FAA only acknowledges the AMA as a CBO at present. I don't think there is another organization that would qualify as a CBO.

The FAA had not yet said what their definition of operating under the programming of a CBO means, So it is possible the FAA could if they wanted to could require a modeler to be
a AMA member in exchange for less stringent regulation however I don't think they will.

From reading the FAA documentation that is probably a better assessment. The FAA basically endorses the "safety rules or guidelines" and not the AMA as a whole. "Under the agreement, AMA will serve as a focal point for the aero-modelling community, the hobby industry and the FAA to communicate relevant and timely safety information." (bold my emphasis)

This link has a good synopsis on their agreement: http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsid=75599

Some may have seen this, but here is an example of the DOT and FAA with no AMA involvement mentioned: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsId=18295

The FAA is utilizing the AMA for aero-modeling safety as much as possible. Why not? It is good strategy. If there were more organizations in the "know" then the FAA would use them too.

I'm beginning to think that you are fact averse. Have you not read the interpretive rule? It makes it quite clear. The FAA does not have to endorse a CBO, only merely acknowledging the existence of a group that meets the intent of the law is satisfactory.

With that, I guess you mean the "law" AMA breathed into the wording of 336???

I understand facts very well. And I never said the FAA has to endorse the AMA.

Yea, I was wondering where he got the idea you said anything like that... but be that as it may, it seems an unspoken contention that AMA is the model airplane god LOL

If it is unspoken, then how do you know it is a contention?

Spent my entire life reading between the lines to find true intent of self-rightiuos hypocrites...been almost 100% for quite some time now...just a few that seemed sincere enough to fool me recently...but I am never going to quit learning... to be even better at finding the real truth.

Here is how the Conference Committee for Section 336 defined a CBO:

The actual law requires not only following the safety code of a CBO, but to also be operating "within the programming" of it:

I'm not a lawyer but to me that means abiding by the safety code, not actually being a member.

Though if what we have now is the final result after the NPRM becomes law/rules/code then I think we can say we spent our dues well the last several years.

Okay, I'll ask the obvious question here. I think everyone understands "operating in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines". What does "within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" mean? I certainly don't think they mean being a member of an organization.

Frank

I asked Rich Hanson about this recently. Here is his response:

Beyond that, I guess I am lost in understanding why people would want to take advantage of using the AMA rules in order to comply with Section 336, but do not feel it is worth supporting the organization that got them the ability to fly using the rules the AMA writes??

The Interpretive rule didn't express much about "programming". In a footnote they mentioned the FPV guidelines, which are part of a so called "program". They also mentioned the over 55 pounds waiver, another program. But other than that, they said nothing. I don't think programming, per se, is on their RADAR. They, however, made it clear, in section IV of the interpretation, that they would enforce every regulation they could think of if someone violates the NAS and creates a danger. That, I think, is the big focus.